2016-05-21 23:27 GMT+03:00 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > * Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> Should print on success: >> >> [root@localhost ~]# ./test_mremap_vdso_32 >> >> AT_SYSINFO_EHDR is 0xf773f000 >> >> [NOTE] Moving vDSO: [f773f000, f7740000] -> [a000000, a001000] >> >> [OK] >> >> Or segfault if landing was bad (before patches): >> >> [root@localhost ~]# ./test_mremap_vdso_32 >> >> AT_SYSINFO_EHDR is 0xf774f000 >> >> [NOTE] Moving vDSO: [f774f000, f7750000] -> [a000000, a001000] >> >> Segmentation fault (core dumped) >> > >> > So I still think that generating potential segfaults is not a proper way to test a >> > new feature. How are we supposed to tell the feature still works? I realize that >> > glibc is a problem here - but that doesn't really change the QA equation: we are >> > adding new kernel code to help essentially a single application out of tens of >> > thousands of applications. >> > >> > At minimum we should have a robust testcase ... >> >> I think it's robust enough. It will print "[OK]" and exit with 0 on >> success and it will crash on failure. The latter should cause make >> run_tests to fail reliably. > > Indeed, you are right - I somehow mis-read it as potentially segfaulting on fixed > kernels as well... > > Will look at applying this after the merge window. Great! Thanks, Ingo - maybe I should have wrote test's patch description better. Thanks again, Andy. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>